The People v Christopher Manda (HP/109/2019) [2022] ZMHC 91 (30 March 2022)

f J1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZAMBI ~ r--,.:!~'_l?}CIARy 4fe4 HP/109/2019 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA ,~Jl~j ' 3 ~ - -~ ; ~ ~~pUbli<ro;:- Z-4 . y.,c;\-\ counr o,: ;::e4 (Criminal Jurisdiction) c~;AL REG BETWEEN: ·0 ~~ 50067 LUSA°IU" ISTRy 4 ... I-- ~ THE PEOPLE V CHRISTOPHER MANDA BEFORE HON MRS JUSTICE S . KAUNDA NEWA THIS 30th DAY OF MARCH, For the State For the Accused Mrs C. A. Bauleni and Ms O Muhwende, State Advocates, NPA Mr H umphrey Mweemba, Principal Legal Aid Counsel JUDGMENT CASES REFERRED TO: 1. Inambao v The People 1969 ZR 84 LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1. The Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia The Accused person in this matter stands charged with Two (2) counts of attem pted extortion, contrary to Section 297 (a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia. The particulars of count 1 a llege that Christopher Manda on 22 n d May, 2018, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District, of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, jointly and whilst acting together with other f J2 persons unknown, did attempt to extort or gain K7, 499.80 from Ben Mbemba by threatening to accuse of him of committing a felony. In count two, the particulars of the offence a llege that Christopher Manda on 22nd May, 2018, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District, of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, jointly and whilst acting together with other persons unknown, did attempt to extort or gain Kl 1, 498.00 from Ibrahim Atar, by threatening to accuse of him of committing a felony. The accused person denied both counts, and at the trial , the State called Six (6) witnesses, while the accused person gave his defence on oath and called no witnesses. The onus is upon the State to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. PWl was Musonda Kapena, an Environmental Consultant. She testified that on 22 nd May, 2018, sh e was working with a client Adrian Atar, the director of Sihem Investments, a block making company, in Kabulonga, on a new project. As they were working, Adrian received a phone call, and on ending the conversation, he told PWl that they had to rush to Ibex Hill where Sihem Investments is located, there being an emergency, as people had gone t h ere to close t h e company. PWl continued with her testimony, stating that upon arrival at the Sihem offices in Kabulonga, she saw the director Ibrahim Atar with Two (2) men who were wearing white dust coats and hard hats . When PWl asked what the matter was, One (1) of the Two (2) men, Mr Chipili said that they were from State House, and had gone to the f J3 premises to inspect for environmental issues, under the Keep Zambia Clean and Healthy campaign. Mr Chipili further informed PWl that they had found offences on the premises, and that the directors of Sihem should pay over Kl 1, 000.00. Still in her testimony, PWl asked the men the basis of the money that they were claiming should be paid, and Mr Chipili said that they were guided by the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA) at the Lusaka City Council. He went on to state that if the directors did not pay, they would immediately close down the company. PW 1 told the court that as a professional, she had asked the men for some identification, but both of them declined, and they asked her who she was. When PWl identified herself, the men said she was not part of the company, and that they did not want to talk to her. PWl testified that she had told her clients not to pay the money, until she verified with ZEMA. However, the men got angry with her, saying that they would arrest her, as they had powers from State House. Still in her testimony, PWl stated that she exchanged angry words with the men, and they insisted that her clients should pay the money, but that as PWl had interfered, they would return after thirty (30) days. The evidence was that the men showed PWl Two (2) documents, one being a photocopy of a newspaper extract, with a circle on the second bottom row, with Kl , 500.00 circled, which she identified as a list of offences extracted from the Environmental Act. She identified it, and it was marked 'ID 1 '. J4 PWl also identified Statutory Instrument No 12 of 2018, issued under the Local Government Act, which was also circled and ticked in certain areas, and it was marked 'ID2'. Her testimony was that the men told her that it was authority for them to receive the money. However, PWl had argued that the numbers on the Statutory Instrument was not money, but penalty units, and that her clients would not pay, until the men showed her official documents from either ZEMA or the Council asking her clients to pay. That is how the men left in anger. In cross examination, PWl testified that she found the two men talking to the Manager at Sihem, and that the two men introduced themselves as Mr Chipili and Aaron Mbewe. Benny Mubemba was PW2, a businessman. His evidence was that on 22nd May, 2018, he was working at Tetrotech Construction Limited a business. Then around lunch hour, a grey Pajero vehicle drove into his premises, and a lady and Four (4) men disembarked from it. PW2 told the court that One (1) of the men introduced himself as Mr Manda from the Alliance to Keep Zambia Clean, under the auspices of State House, and supervised by his Excellency, the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu. PW2 further testified that Mr Manda stated that as team leader, he was enforcing his Excellency, the President's directives. He went on to testify that Mr Manda even showed him 'ID2', the Statutory Instrument. PW2 added that on that Statutory Instrument was the name C. Manda, and a mobile telephone number, and that thereafter, J6 responded, pleading that they were close by. It was also stated that Mr Manda had told him that he had sent a person to get the money, as he had gone to attend to another client, within the vicinity. When PW2 arrived at the office, he found the vehicle with the person who was introduced as Mr Mbewe. Mr Mbewe told PW2 that Mr Manda, President of the Alliance had sent him to pick up the funds. From there, PW2 went with Mr Mbewe and the two (2) police officers to his office, where Mr Mbewe asked for the money. PW2 testified that he put the money on the table, and the police officers took over from there, and introduced themselves to Mr Mbewe, and he was apprehended. The police asked Mr Mbewe to lead them to the President of the Alliance, and he led them to a place on Twin Palm Road where they make blocks. There, another vehicle drove in, and PW2 was informed that they were also police officers in that vehicle, who had been called by the owner of the premises that they had driven into. From there, they went to Woodlands Police where the police officers got statements from them. PW2 identified the accused person was the person who introduced himself as C. Manda. When cross examined, PW2 testified that he gave police a statement on the day the incident took place, being 22nd May, 2018. He agreed that he signed the statement, and when referred to the said statement, PW2 told the court that it did not mention Chandwe Musonda Road, but that he had not lied when he said that they had an office on Chandwe Musonda Road. He stated that it is an offence for a wrong person to enforce a Statutory Instrument. J7 PW2 agreed that 'ID2', the Statutory Instrument has penalties, and he testified that he was informed that they had committed offence number 49, whose penalty is K2, 500.00. It was stated that PW2 was threatened to pay K7, 400.00, and that he was told that the people were an Alliance under his Excellency the President, Edgar Chagwa Lungu. He testified that the accused person was the team leader and spokesperson, and that he was not surprised that only the accused person, and not the other Four (4) people were before the court. It was also PW2's evidence in cross examination, that he was with the cashier Inonge when the Alliance went to the office, and that the accused person said that he would call the media. PW2 could not confirm if the accused person called the media, but stated that the accused person mentioned a media organization, and his friends said that he would call the media. He denied having remained with only Chipili after the others had left, and he told the court that he reported the matter to t h e police the same day, and the men were apprehended. PW2 produced the statement that he gave to the police, a nd it was marked 'P3'. He reiterated that the accused person was the t eam leader and spokesperson. PW2 a lso stated that it could not be inferred from the statement 'P3' that Chipili remained sayin g that PW2 should negotiate. He further stated that the statement reads that the accused person threatened PW2 to pay or he would call the media, as when they had gone there, they had shown PW2 , the Statutory Instrument which they ticked after they inspected the premises. He also stated that the accused person had threatened to call the media, and he had stormed out of the office. However, Chipili h a d told JS Mr Manda and his team inspected the premises. Subsequently, whilst in PW2 's office, Mr Manda read the offences that h e said the business had committed. These were failure to have a refuse bin , which offence h e said carried a fine of K2 , 500.00, dirt at the premises, and staff not eating from a d esignated canteen. PW2 testified that the total amount found as a fine was K7, 499.08 . It was his testimony that Mr Manda told that him that he needed to pay the fine immediately, failure to which the business would be closed. Further, that h e would call the media to go and embarrass them . PW2 also stated tha t the threats were so real, tha t some of his workers ran away from the premises. It was stated that PW2 became suspicious of the men, and he told them that he needed to go to Chandwe Musonda road at Dana Holdings, the parent company to get the money to pay, in order to avoid embarrassm ent. PW2 still in his t estimony stated that he s aved Ma nda's phone number on his phone, and told him that h e would call him once h e h a d the money, and that h e would b e b ack before 14:00 hours . He testified that he however rushed to Woodlands Police a nd reported the matter. Whilst there, the phone number that h e h ad s aved for Ma nda rang, and the police officer h ad asked him to put it on loud speaker. PW2 did as direct ed, and the voice asked him how fa r h e h a d gone with mobilizing the money, and PW2 had r esponded stating that he was stuck in traffic, and would b e at the office a n y time. He further told the court that h e went back to t h e business premises with two (2) police officers, and whilst on the way, Mr Ma nda h ad called him t elling him t h at h e s hould not play with him. PW2 h ad J8 PW2 that he should negotiate the amount he was to pay. He agreed that when he went back to the office, the accused p erson was not there. It was his evidence that Chipili and the accused person were apprehended after he gave a statement. Inonge Shafula, a cashier at Tetrotech Construction was PW3. She like PW2 testified that a vehicle went to the premises around lunch hour on 22nd May, 2018. She confirmed tha t in that vehicle were Four (4) men and One (1) lady, who introduced themselves as being from the Allia nce to Keep Zambia Clean formed under Sta te House. PW3 a lso told the court that the group informed them that they were goin g around companies inspecting how they operated. PW3 further stated that PW2 invited the m en into his offices and explained that the premises were new, and they needed to put up facilities, such as an office block and toilets. Thereafter, the group had inspected outside, as well as the toilets, a nd that the accused person had introduced himself as President of the Alliance. PW3 told the court that she was asked if they had a canteen at the site, and she had responded that they did not yet h ave one. Her evidence was also that the group stated that the premises wer e dirty, and had to b e shut down, so that Mr Mubemba could work on them. Further, that if the premises were shut down, the media would be called, or the Council would go there and inspect. PW3 also testified that sh e remained outside when PW2 went with Two (2) of the people from the Allia nce into the office, stating that she r emained with the President and the rest of them . Thereafter, the President was on J9 the phone saying that the media should be called, and the company should not just be shut down. After that, the Two (2) men came out of PW2's office, and they left, and PW2 stated that h e needed to get the money or the place would be shut down. PW3 continued, testifying that PW2 left, and th e Pajero drove back into the premises with One (1) of the men who had earlier gone there, and he said that he had spoken with the Manager. PW3 went with him into the office, and a little while later, the Manager, PW2 returned with Two (2) men. She testified that she left PW2's office, and she was asked to go with the men. The men later led PW2 a nd the men he had returned with his President, at a company near Twin Pa lm mall. There, Two (2) of the men were found, and they were apprehended, and PW3 and the others went to Woodlands Police. PW3 in cross examination maintained that the Pajero had Five (5) occupants, when it went to the company premises. However, the second time, it returned with only One (1) person. She reiterated th at the accused person told them that he was President of the Alliance , a nd that h e stated that the premises were not operating to standard. It was a lso PW3 's eviden ce that the accused p er son insisted that h e would call the media, and that the Council would go and inspect the premises. It was added that t he accused person seemingly spoke to someone on the phone, and PW3 stated th at the accused person did not enter the office with PW2. He however said that he would report the company to JlO the media. PW3 agreed that she did not hear the accused person threaten PW2 to pay the money. Her evidence was that Mr Chipili told them that he was related to the Director, and he asked PW2 to go to his office to discuss. PW3 denied that the accused person left the premises, stating that he was on the phone, and she was outside with him. She agreed that she did not know what was discussed in the office. Her testimony was that an older man, and not Chipili went back to the business premises in the afternoon. At that time, the accused person was not there. By way of concluding her cross examination, PW3 testified that she did not see the Statutory Instrument being produced. Kennedy Zulu, a supervisor at Sihem Investments was PW4. He testified that on 22nd May, 2018, he was in the field in Kabulonga with Adrian Atar when Adrian received a phone call. Adrian thereafter told him that they had to return to the company, as people had gone there to search. There, they found a grey Pajero motor vehicle and there were Three (3) visitors, among them a person who introduced himself as Chipili from State House. Chipili had said that they had gone there to search, and they were not pleased with what they had found. In this regard, Chipili and the other Two (2) had said that the toilets were not okay, as well as the attire for the workers and the premises. They had said that the company had committed offences, and they outlined the offences and the fines. Jll It was stated that at the time, PWl was there, and the company was asked to pay Kl 1, 000.00 as fines for the offences. PW4 stated that when PWl looked at the documents, she stated that the amounts on them was not money, and she had asked the team to show her their identification documents. He confirmed that the team argued with PW 1, and they threatened to arrest PW 1. From there, PW4 went outside leaving them, and a short while later, the men left. Later, some other visitors went to the premises, and the boss asked PW4 to accompany them to another block making company in Ibex Hill called Deaz Factory. The visitors left that premises with some people and they proceeded to Woodlands Police. There, they were shown 'ID 1' and '1D2'. When cross examined, PW4 told the court that he was with PWl when the boss's son called his boss. He stated that there were Three (3) visitors, and that none of those people was before the court. PW4 stated that the person before the court was picked from the other office. PW5 was Jimmy Masowe, a police officer at Woodlands Police. His testimony was that he was assigned to investigate the matter on 23rd May, 2018 . As part of his investigations, he went to State House where he enquired if at all they had sent any officers who were attached to Local Government. His investigations revealed that no such officers had been sent. However, he still proceeded to the Ministry of Local Government and on his return, he found that the accused person and Aaron Mbewe had been apprehended in connection with the offence. • J12 His testimony was that he interviewed them, but they did not give a satisfactory response, and he charged the two with the subject offences. Under warn and caution in Nyanja, they had given free and voluntary replies denying the charges. He also testified that the matter was referred to the Magistrates Court, and the two were granted police bond, but Aaron Mbewe disappeared, and efforts to apprehend him had failed. He produced 'ID 1' as 'Pl'. In cross examination, PW5 testified that 'Pl' was Act No 12 of 2011. He agreed that the handwriting on the back of the document was not confirmed by a handwriting expert. He also agreed that there were no findings from State House or the Ministry of Local Government before the court. He did not agree that the people who attempted to extort were Chipili and Mbewe, saying that the accused person was present at the scenes, although he found him in custody. He denied that he had limited knowledge as an investigator, and that the accused person was apprehended as a result of being the chairperson or leader of Alliance to Keep Zambia Clean. He also denied that the Alliance was conducting sensitization on that day. PW5 agreed that his investigations established that the Alliance worked in groups, and he stated that there was conspiracy to extort, as people were being made to pay at the scene instead of depositing the funds. When referred to the back of 'Pl', he testified that it states that to come after Thirty (30) days for spot check. He said that he could only assume that the words were written after the owner of the premises said that they did not have any money to pay. • J13 The last witness called by the State was Crispin Mwale also a police officer at Woodlands police. He explained that the role that h e played in the matter, was to take a report from PW2 regarding the attempted extortion. Thereafter, himself, PWS and Constable Lukele went with PW2 to the company premises, and found the Pajero vehicle in the hands of Aaron Mbewe . At the time, the accused person h a d gone to inspect another company, and Aaron Mbewe led them there. The accused person was a pprehended, and h e explained that they were there a t President Edgar Lungu's instructions. PW6, like PWS proceeded to State House to verify the assertions made by t h e accused person, and it was d enied that State House had sent th e accu sed person. PW6 extended his inquiry to th e Lusaka City Council, who also denied having sent a team to inspect construction companies. PW6 warned and cautioned the accused person, a nd la ter charged him, as h e did not give a satisfactory r esponse . He confirmed that the person who was charged with the accused person and released on police bond thereafter , disa ppeared . He produced 'P2' in evidence. PW6 in cross examination said that h e could not tell who wrote C. Manda on 'P2'. He stated that h e was the only investigations officer in the m atter , and that h e did not com e across PWl and PW4. He did not agr ee that the Alliance had a certificate of incorpora tion, but agreed that the accused p erson was the leader of th e team, and that he spoke with PW2. Whilst agr eeing that PW2 was found to h ave committed offences, PW6 could not state if PW2 h a d motive to give false evidence. J14 He like PWS agreed that he had no record of what State House or the Ministry of Local Government had said. PW6 denied that the accused person was at Daez Construction, and not where PW2 worked. He agreed that Three (3) people were apprehended, but stated that Graham Mulenga was turned into a State witness. He explained that Graham Mulenga disappeared, but that the accused person wanted to extort money. That marked the close of the case for the State. When put on his defence, the accused person testified that on 22nd May, 2018, the organizing committee of the Alliance to Keep Zambia Clean Campaign divided itself into zones to make visitations. This was after a workshop was held at the Government Complex which was officiated by the Minister of Health. He stated that the workshop had resolved that cholera is a disease that can wipe out people, if it is not handled with care, and that all the participants must adhere to cleaning their work places. Further in his defence, the accused person testified that it was resolved that all delegates be visited after Thirty (30) days to check on the implementation of the resolutions by the Organising Committee. He told the Court that Dana Group of Companies, where PW2 worked, was one of the participants at the workshop. It was also explained that the Keep Zambia Clean Campaign supplemented government efforts by ensuring that the campaign messages reached everyone. Thus on 20th May, 2018, the accused person phoned the General Secretary, asking them to constitute a JlS team, and Emmanuel Chipili led the zone. The team wore uniforms and they had identification cards, and Aaron Mbewe, Graham Mulenga, the accused person, and Judy Nakazwe were part of the team. He explained that they had a Statutory Instrument that had his phone number on it for ease of communication, as he was President of the Association. The accused person went on to testify that he accompanied Zone A to see how they were working, and he thereafter left. He admitted that they went to Tetrotech, where PW2 worked, and that among the vehicles they were in, was a Pajero registration number ALT 901. His testimony was that after they introduced themselves, the accused person had explained the role of the Keep Zambia Clean Campaign. From there, PW2 's Secretary, Inonge Shafula (PW3) had gone there, and PW2 and the rest of the team had gone to the plant, and the accused person remained with her at the vehicle, and she had asked him more about the programme. He denied being part of the team that inspected Tetrotech, but stated that upon the inspection being concluded, he left with the group, whom he left at the second institution, while he proceeded to the third institution, with Graham Mulenga. From there, the Two (2) went to the fourth and fifth institutions. He stated that it was whilst they were at the fifth institution, that he was approached by a person who introduced himself as Constable Mwale, and told him that he was looking for him. Constable Mwale had explained to the accused person that he was arresting him for J16 collecting money from PW2 and Ibrahim Atar. They were apprehended and taken to Woodlands Police, and that out of the group members, Chipili was not detained. Continuing with his defence, the accused person testified that he had an identification document and a dust coat, but State House was not written on the documents. He reiterated that his phone number was written on all the Statutory Instruments, adding that he presented his identification document when presenting the programme. The accused person also testified that PW3 had confirmed that he was not part of the team that inspected the premises, as he was at the vehicle with her. It was further his evidence that Keep Zambia Clean and Healthy was registered in 2007. He denied attempting to extort over K7, 000.00 from PW2, stating that it was not part of the sensitization programme. The accused person further denied having attempted to extort over Kl 1, 000.00 from Ibrahim Atar, his defence being that he was not in that meeting. He added that PW4 had confirmed that position, and he reiterated that he was arrested as President of the Association. He denied having circled the fines on the Statutory Instrument, as the money to be paid, stating that he had explained to the organisations that they visited, that the Lusaka City Council would charge them those amounts if they went and inspected the premises. When cross examined, the accused person stated that at the workshop, they had discussed the various penalties in the Statutory Instrument, and that the said Statutory Instrument was in force at the J17 time. He told the court that the facilitators circled the Statutory Instrument, but that not everything was circled. When cross examined further, the accused person testified that he had not stated that the facilitators had circled the Statutory Instrument. He denied having changed his testimony. It was his evidence that the Alliance was mandated to inspect institutions, but that their mandate did not involve reporting defaulting institutions, but pointing out their deficiencies. He reiterated that Dana, of which Tetrotech was p a rt, participated in the workshop, and that they went to Tetrotech to inspect. He denied having heard PW2 testify that the plant was new, but that the accused person's team had said that the toilets were dirty. The accused p erson also denied that he was privy to those findings , as he had moved to another institution. His defence was further that he left the team at Tetrotech, as he was confident that they would explain the three points. Still in cross examination, the accused person agreed that h e hea rd PW3 testify that h e had remained outside, as h e wanted to call the m edia. He denied that this was the position, a lthough that evidence was not challenged when PW3 was cross examined. He denied having written his phone number on 'Pl ', stating that it was obtained from Mr. Chipili. The Accused person could not recall that PW 1 h ad testified th a t she h a d requested to see his identification document. J18 I have considered the evidence in this matter, and the submissions filed by the State. It is common cause that the accused person was apprehended at a business premise, whilst he was allegedly conducting campaigns to Keep Zambia Clean on 22nd May, 2018. It is also not in contention that the accused person was part of the people who introduced themselves as the Alliance to Keep Zambia Clean under the auspices of State House at Tetrotech to PW2 and others. It is further not in contention, that PW2 reported to the police that the accused persons and others were trying to extort the company out of over K7, 000.00 for offences that they alleged that Tetrotech had committed under the Environmental Management Act, No 12 of 2011, and Statutory Instrument No 12 of 2018 issued under the Local Government Act on street vending and nuisances. It is also common cause that PWl testified that she went to Sihem Company with Adrian Atar, when Adrian Atar was informed that there were members of the Alliance to Keep Zambia Clean, who wanted to close down the company. It is a fact that PW 1 testified that the persons who said that they were from the Keep Zambia Clean Alliance showed her Statutory Instrument No 12 of 2018, issued under the Local Government Act and asked the owners of Sihem Construction to pay the fines stipulated in the Statutory Instrument. The question is wh eth er it h as been proved bey ond all reasonable doubt that the accused p erson committed the offence of attempted extortion in both counts? Attempted extortion is d efined in Section 297 (a ) of the Pen a l Code as; ., J19 "297. (1) Any person who, with intent to extort or gain anything from any person- (a) accuses or threatens to accuse any person of committing any felony or misdemeanour, or of offering or making any solicitation or threat to any person as an inducement to commit or permit the commission of any felony or misdemeanour; or (b) threatens that any person shall be accused by any other person of any felony or misdemeanour, or of any such act; or (c) knowing the contents of the writing, causes any person to receive any writing containing any such accusation or threat as aforesaid; is guilty of a felony, and if the accusation or threat of accusation is of- (i) an offence for which the punishment of death or imprisonment for Zif e may be inflicted; or (ii) any of the offences defined in Chapter XV, or an attempt to commit any of such offences; or (iii) an assault with intent to have carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature, or an unlawful and indecent assault upon a male person; or l J20 (iv) a solicitation or threat offered or made to any person as an inducement to commit or permit the commission of any of the offences aforesaid; (j) the offender is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years. In any other case the offender is liable to imprisonment for three years". In this case, the allegation 1s that the accused person attempted to extort money from PW2 and Ibraham Atar by threatening to accuse them of having committed felonies or misdemenours. The evidence on record shows that the accused person whilst in the company of four (4) other persons went to Tetrotech Construction Company where PW2 was a Manager. There, they introduced themselves as members of the Alliance to Keep Zambia clean, and stated that they had gone there to inspect the premises. Thereafter, they produced 'Pl', an extract of the Environmental Management Act, and 'P2', a Statutory Instrument issued under the Local Government Act, which contains offences and the fee units payable when a person is found guilty of having committed an offence. The allegation is that the Alliance demanded payment for the offences that they found that Tetrotech had committed. The accused person denied having committed the offences, stating that with regard to Tetrotech, while he admitted having gone there in a Pajero vehicle with the others, his role ended at doing the introductions, and t h at he did not participate in the inspection or any J21 demands for payment, as he had proceeded to the next company. With regard to Sihem, the accused person testified that he was not part of the Alliance team that went there. The Accused person does not dispute being at Tetrotech, but denied having demanded money from PW2. The accused person also did not deny having presented the Statutory Instrument 'P2', to PW2 and the others, stating that he used it to explain their visitation. PW2 testified that a person who introduced himself as Manda, who is the now accused person, gave him a phone number which called him, when he had gone out on the pretext that he had gone to get the money demanded from Dana Holdings, the parent company. Further, that this person was part of the team that inspected the premises, and told him the offences that the company had committed, and that he needed to pay immediately failure to which the company would be closed down. PW2 also told the court that the accused person h a d said that he would call the media to go and embarrass the company, after he stormed out of PW2's office. In cross examination, PW2 denied that h e remained with only Chipili. PW3 in her testimony confirmed that the accused person was part of the Alliance team that inspected the premises, and that after that, PW2 went into the office with two (2) of the Alliance m embers, while PW3 remained outside with the accu sed, who she described as President of the Alliance. Her testimony was that the accused person was on the phone stating that he would call the m edia, and that the place would not just be l J22 shout down. That it was only after the Alliance team left that PW2 said that they needed money to pay. The accused person in his defence stated that the Alliance compliments the Keep Zambia Clean campaign. It 1s trite that the Zambia Environmental Agency is the body that administers the Environmental Management Act, and the Local Government, the Loca l Government Act. Any bodies involved in environmental matters have no mandate to administer the Environmental Management Act or the Local Government Act, but may engage in sensitization and compliment ZEMA and the Local Government in enforcing the Acts. Therefore, the Alliance for which the accused person was President, had no mandate to go around inspecting premises, let alone fining any erring bodies. That was a recipe for disaster, as any person could wake up and start enforcing the law. While PW2 and PW3 contradicted themselves on whether the accused person actually asked PW2 to pay the money on making findings that Tetrotech had committed offences under the Environmental Act, as PW3 said she had remained with him when the other two (2) went with PW2 into the office after the premises were inspected, PW3 's testimony that the accused person was on the phone stating that the media would be called to go and embarrass the compa n y went unchallenged in cross examination. This was also PW2 's evidence when he said that the accused person stormed out of the office. Therefore, while Chipili may have been the person who demanded that PW2 pays the money, the accused person J23 was p art and parcel of th e t h reats , as he threatened to call the media an d em barrass the company. Section 2 1 of t h e Penal Code s ta t es as follows; "21 . (1) When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say: (a)every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence; (b) every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; (c) every person who aids or abets another person in committing the offence; (d)any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence. (2) In the case of paragraph (d) of subsection (1), such person may be charged either with committing the offence or with counselling or procuring its commission. A conviction of counselling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence. Any person who procures another to do or omit to do any act of such a nature that, if he had himself done the act or made the omission, the act or omission would have constituted an ' J24 offence on his part, is guilty of an offence of the same kind and is liable to the same punishment, as if he had himself done the act or made the omission; and he may be charged with doing the act or making the omission". In the case of Inambao v The People f1J it was held that; "Where a common intent is necessary for a crime, that intent must be present; a common intent to commit another crime does not suffice. Section 21 (a) of the Penal Code applies to cases where an unlawful intent is necessary but the actual offence committed is constituted by a further completely fortuitous circumstance for which no further intent (other than the initial "unlawful intent'J is necessary". The evidence on record shows that the accused persons and the other persons in his group had formed a common purpose, which was to extort money from companies on the allegation that they had committed offences under the Environmental Management Act, as being enforced by the Alliance to Keep Zambia Clean under the auspices of State House. While PW4 and PWS had no documentary evidence that their investigations had established that the inspections were not under the auspices of State House, their evidence was not shaken in cross examination, and therefore it was cr edible. The accused person was part of the team that inspected Tetrotech where Mr Mbewe threatened PW2 to produce money to pay on alleging offences that the company J25 h ad committed, when they h ad no mandate to do so. This th ey did by accusing the company of having committed offences, and the accused person was party to the same, as PW3 testified that he was a llegedly on the phone saying h e would call the m edia. This amounts to an attempt at extortion. Therefore, in coun t 1 the offence 1s complete against the accused person, and I find him GUILTY as charged and CONVICT him accordingly . With regard to count two, the evidence given by PWl and PW4 did not put the accused person at the scene. While the evidence as a whole establishes that the persons identifying themselves as part of the Keep Zambia Clean Campaign h ad formed a common intent to extort companies of m oney on the pretext that they had committed offen ces under the Environmental Management Act, there is no evidence to show that the accused person h a d formed a common intent to extort money from Ibrahim A tar. I therefore find him NOT GUILTY, and ACQUIT him forthwith and set him at liberty on that count. Delivered in Open Court at Lusaka this 30th day of March, 2022